i should put stars or something by the names of the people in the poll who are actually officially running, but with all the announcements of announcements of announcements, it's hard to keep it all straight. anyway, tim pawlenty is announcing that he's going to officially announce._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

I try not to read too heavily into what Gingrich represents because he's been so off-the-wall lately, but I guess a 'political Charlie Sheen' works as good as anything.

Realistically, I think that the strategists for the GOP primaries have been well aware that Gingrich himself is a liability that should have put himself out to pasture a long time ago. He's a perfect hypocrite for the liberals to target: a man who campaigns and proselytizes by stabbing relentlessly at the wedge issues of morals, values, and goodness, while himself being an abjectly horrid human being. You read about his marital history and you think "and the gays are supposed to be destroying the sanctity of marriage?"

The 'serious' candidates for election in the primaries do not want him involved in any notable way. I would say "so expect for them to eat their own on this one and try to get him out of the picture" but I think they've already seized upon the 'right wing engineering' mess and are doing that already.

NOTE: like I said, this is all off-the-wall. This is just idle postulating on my part, it could be different, iunno.

Republican Daniels says he won't run for president_________________The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
- Charles Darwin

Michelle Bachman* - i guess it's thinking - "I'm in for 2012 in that I want to be a part of the conversation in making sure that President Obama only serves one term, not two."
Herman Cain - i think he's officially in, now.
Charles Elson "Buddy" Roemer III - also planning to be a "factor"
John Bolton - still thinking about it (but why, god, why?)
The Donald - OFFICIALLY OUT
Mike Huckabee - OFFICIALLY OUT
Haley Barbour - OFFICIALLY OUT
John Thune* - OFFICIALLY OUT
Mike Pence* - OFFICIALLY OUT
Jim DeMint - OFFICIALLY OUT
Chris Christie* - OFFICIALLY OUT
Rick Perry - OFFICIALLY OUT
Jeb Bush* - OFFICIALLY OUT
Bobby Jindal - OFFICIALLY OUT
George Pataki* - OFFICALLY OUT
Michael Bloomberg - OFFICIALLY OUT
Gary Johnson - apparently he declared on 21 april, via Twitter.

* had NOT written a book.

i'm intrigued by the long list of people who have stated clearly that they are not running (although in some cases, i wonder how many people were asking the question anyway - i mean really, rick perry?). the website has quoted from everyone, but not what sparked the comment.

interesting site, though - it's got things like what their PAC is, and how much money everyone has on hand - which may be the most telling in terms of who chooses to be in and who out. how long newtie hangs in my be due less to his tendency to run off at the mouth and more to the fact that he seems to have less than $1 million in cash at the moment, vs. palin (with $1.3 million in hand and $3.5 mill collected last year) and front runner romney (a little under $1 mill in hand, but he collected $5.5 m last year)._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

Last edited by mouse on Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:52 am; edited 3 times in total

Talking Points has a preview of Mitt Romney’s official I’m-running-for-president speech. He’s going to say that “We are only inches away from ceasing to be a free market economy,” and pledge to keep federal spending under 20 percent of GDP.

Romney is not a stupid man; nor is he, as best one can tell, temperamentally an extremist. So he has to know that he’s talking total nonsense. The only major expansion of the state Obama is pursuing is a health care plan that is, ahem, essentially identical to what Romney did in Massachusetts. And given the realities of the federal budget — the federal government is basically an insurance company for old people with an army on the side, and the baby boomers are becoming seniors — the only way to keep federal spending below 20 percent of GDP would be to impose savage cuts on Medicare and Social Security.

But Romney is willing to pretend to be an ignorant extremist to have any chance of getting the Republican nomination. So this ends up being a character issue: do you want a man that cynical in the White House?

"We are only inches away from ceasing to be a free market economy" is profound hyperbole, considering that any educated free-market purist, von mises fanboy or what have you, would blanch if you dared suggest that what we had was a 'free market economy' — it's such a huge disconnect from the previous statement that government has grown to 40% of the economy.

the sheer variety of mental disconnects on 'free market economy' among republicans is amazing. i'm not sure any of them really understand what it is, and they sure have no clue what relationship the american economy genuinely has to whatever they think the free market really is, or what it can really do, or what problems it might have.

but yeah - mitt is so busy running away from his record while trying to tout his record - he's going to end up looking like a ball of yarn after the cats have gotten to it._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

He's well aware of what a 'free market economy' actually is. He knows that there's a sensible definition of it. He knows he's not using the term in any way other than a rhetorical trigger-word, same as he knows we're not actually in danger of having the government be 40% of our economy (or even 30%). What he knows is that his voting base is well-trained and incredulous enough to respond in a pavlovian fashion to the appeal to fear using words that a lot of them understand and respond to merely as rhetoric.

He's well aware of what a 'free market economy' actually is. He knows that there's a sensible definition of it. He knows he's not using the term in any way other than a rhetorical trigger-word, same as he knows we're not actually in danger of having the government be 40% of our economy (or even 30%). What he knows is that his voting base is well-trained and incredulous enough to respond in a pavlovian fashion to the appeal to fear using words that a lot of them understand and respond to merely as rhetoric.

Just another addition to the ever growing list of 'reasons why the fundamentals of philosophy (logic, ethics, epistemology, and even aesthetics) need to be taught in compulsory education'. Also, we've learned nothing, at least not in 40 years:

Edmund Muskie, University of Michigan, on March 13, 1970 said/ wrote:

I hope that the issue of environmental protection does not become a smokescreen that will obscure the overall crisis of life in America.

I am concerned that the environment will obscure the unmet challenge of equal opportunity, and there appears to be good cause for concern.

The great danger of the environmental issue is that we may not recognize that the total environment is at stake in America.

Whatever form your efforts take after Earth Day, the focus of your efforts must be man – man today, man tomorrow, and man in relation to all the other forms of life which share our biosphere. And in addition to the air, the water, and the land, man's environment includes the shape of the communities in which he lives, his home, his schools, his places of work, and his society.

The environmental conscience that has gripped the nation should hold great promise – not only for our air, our water and our land, but also for the future of people searching for ways out of poverty, hunger and neglect. The environmental conscience may be the way to turn the nation around.

The study of ecology – man's relationship with his environment – should finally teach us that our relationships with each other are just as intricate and just as delicate as those with our natural environment.

We cannot afford to correct our history of abusing nature and neglect the continuing abuse of our fellow man.

We should have learned by this time in our development as a nation that we must find ways to live together in peace. And we should have learned that the only way to achieve peace among ourselves is to insure that all Americans have equal access to a healthy environment – to a healthy total environment.

That can mean nothing less than equal access to good schools for our children, to meaningful job opportunities, to adequate medical care, and to decent housing.

For the last ten years we have been groping toward the realization that the total environment is at stake.

We have seen the destruction of poverty, and declared a war on it.
We have seen the ravages of hunger, and declared a war on it.
We have seen the costs of crime, and declared a war on it.
And now we have awakened to the pollution of our environment, and we have declared another war.

We have fought too many losing battles in those wars to continue this piece-meal approach to self preservation. The only strategy that makes sense is a total strategy to protect the total environment. We must do it now – not when inflation eases, not in a few years, not sometime soon, but now. For the sake of the environment if nothing else, we ought to find it possible to put off grand tours of space, faster planes, and greater overkill.

This will not be merely a summertime war. The protection of our environment will be a long, hard pull. The action you take as students, will be important, but the greatest challenges will come when you assume your roles in the communities of the future.

We must forge a wholesale change in our priorities and our values. We must redefine our standard of living, reflecting the knowledge that both our human and natural resources are at stake.

This will not be easy. Walter Lippmann, stated the problem very well when he said that "The supreme question before mankind . . . is how men will be able to make themselves willing and able to save
themselves."

We must turn away from uncontrolled economic and technological growth that ignores the increasing strain on the environment. As we seek to control this growth, the kinds of difficult decisions you will have to make will be surprising. As community leaders – and as students – you must see that the right decisions are made.

Our technology has reached a point in its development where it is producing more than we want, more than we need, and more than we can live with.

We have to learn to choose, to say no, and to give up some luxuries. These kinds of decisions are the acid test of our commitment to a healthy environment. Right now we are failing that test.

Look at the budget for 1971. That "balanced budget" represents shamefully unbalanced priorities. That budget "balances" $275 million for the SST against $106 million for air pollution control. It "balances" $3.4 billion for the space program against $1.4 billion for housing. And it "balances" $7.3 billion for arms research and development against $1.4 billion for higher education.

It is a sham to say that we cannot afford the protection of our environment – just yet; or the fight against hunger and poverty – at this time; or homes and medical care for our people – for a few years. We can afford these programs now, if we admit that there are less important programs that we cannot afford.

These are the kinds of choices that have to be reversed. If they are not reversed, our concern and rhetoric will mean nothing.

There are other decisions that must be made, and they are ones in which students should take a hand.

40 years and and it's as relevant as if it was from 40 minutes ago._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

I just read an article about many of the potential Republican candidates are embracing the religious right, again, as part of their strategy.

Stand by for more stumping about prayer in schools, and anti-abortion legislation.

I'd read several break downs of past election cycles where the republicans, true to form, lean heavily on the religious right and they all seemed to show that the religious right didn't have much real influence on elections... Has anyone else seen this? If it is in fact the case, I'm not sure why they think this partnership benefits them._________________"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".

i think it's sort of like the "influence" of the tea party - there really aren't that many of them, but they sure do make a whole lot of noise. and politicians react to the noise - in particular, they like it to make nice sounds about them.

in other news: tim pawlenty makes his major policy agenda a further rightward extension of the current no tax, no spend mantra:

Quote:

In the speech, which his aides described as a major economic policy address, Mr. Pawlenty urged a reduction in business income tax rates to 15 percent, from 35 percent. Under his plan, individual federal income taxes would be flattened to just two rates: 10 percent for the first $50,000 of income and 25 percent for income above that threshold. He also urged elimination of all taxes on capital gains.

Such broad tax cuts would be costly, and Mr. Pawlenty did not provide specifics about how he would offset the impact of the cuts on the federal government’s debt — an issue that has become central to Republicans. He said economic growth would provide much of the money to pay for the tax cuts.

He also said he would overhaul the tax code, calling it a “9,000-page monstrosity” that is “chock full of special deals for special interests.” But he did not say which tax provisions he would eliminate, or whether he would get rid of popular and costly tax deductions like the one for home-mortgage interest.

so same old same old - lots of promises with no basis in reality. oh, and what he calls the google test: if you can find a service on the internet, the government doesn't need to be doing it. no test of whether a private business is likely to charge you more for it so they can make a profit, of course._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

oh, and what he calls the google test: if you can find a service on the internet, the government doesn't need to be doing it. no test of whether a private business is likely to charge you more for it so they can make a profit, of course.

Michelle Bachman* - i guess it's thinking - "I'm in for 2012 in that I want to be a part of the conversation in making sure that President Obama only serves one term, not two."

God this woman is insane. What's sad is there are a bunch of normal, good people in her district who rabidly dislike her, but can't seem to organize well enough to get the vote out against her. Well, at least they couldn't for the mid-term election of 2010, and her inflammatory comments of 2008 were close enough to the election that a lot of people didn't realize how insane she was. I think she would have a huge, almost insurmountable challenge getting re-elected in 2012 without pursuing a presidential bid. Just being in the limelight like that will be enough for a lot of her constituents to assume that she's a well respected and liked Republican, and they will vote for her without knowing what they're voting for--yes, a lot of those people are that politically disconnected.*

So, my prediction: she runs, doesn't get the nomination, but collects enough political capital to easily turn it into another term in the House.

Oh, how I want this woman to be found clinically insane and be institutionalized for the rest of her life!

*I feel qualified to characterize the people of her district as "politically disconnected" because I lived there for most of my life (30+ yrs) and was always astounded at the lack of political insight anyone, left or right, displayed._________________Moo.